from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are many, many studies on creativity and possible ways to improve the creative output of a group. Monetary incentives are often presented as a way to get people to produce more ideas, but some studies show that money isn't actually a great motivator. Obviously, there are a lot of factors that can influence how creative people are, but it would be nice to isolate a few and see if we can eliminate some practices that are downright detrimental to creativity. It would be great if we found out what really could inspire people, but maybe we shouldn't put too much pressure on the researchers... because that might dampen their productivity.

from the copyright-i-choose-you! dept

Update: We've had several folks communicate with us that Pokemon International does not exactly equal Nintendo. As best as we can tell, Pokemon International was in part founded by Nintendo, who retains some percentage of ownership, but Pokemon operates as a distinct entity and it was Pokemon International that sent the C&D. Thank you to everyone who made us aware of this.

We all know that Nintendo wraps itself in copyright law like some kind of really boring security blanket. Every once in a while, the company will make some noise about being more open and accommodating to its biggest fans and the like, but that noise is usually followed up by a rash of takedowns and C&D letters. The most recent battlefront Nintendo has entered in the war against its own fans is the floral planter arena. One woman, admittedly inspired by her love of the Pokemon game series, shared her design for a 3D printed planter on a commerce website.

Claudia Ng had recently purchased a 3D printer, and one of her first projects was to create the model for a Pokémon-themed planter for a friend. She posted it online, and it quickly went viral...She then put the design on Shapeways, a site that allows you to create and share your own 3D-printed objects, and once again the design blew up. It's a simple idea, but one that we've yet to see in official merchandise. The game the design came from wasn't named, but the listing made a few winking references to the Pokémon franchise. Sales went well, but of course it couldn't last.

No, it couldn't last, because Nintendo sent a cease and desist notice to Shapeways, indicating that the planter was infringing on its copyright. Shapeways complied and took the design down and all was just and right in Nintendo's world again. This, by the way, is a picture of what corporate giant Nintendo was so determined to keep from spreading.

You can certainly see why Nintendo was so super-concerned, because if you squint just right, spin around three times, and are a little drunk, that thing looks like a bulbasaur with an artichoke coming out of its ass. It should be noted, by the way, that there's no competing licensed product from Nintendo that's taking sales away or anything. Not that that fact is keeping Nintendo from wanting all the money generated in addition to the takedown, of course.

"Shapeways got a cease and desist from Pokémon International for infringement. They received this on Friday, and Shapeways took it down within the last hour," Ng told Polygon. "They are asking for all the money associated with this model and shapeways will not be printing or shipping any order for the past few days." She may be put in contact with Pokémon International, and she's not sure if anything will come from that potential meeting. This outcome isn't very surprising for anyone involved. "I thought that this would fall under the boundaries of derivative and transformative work. I'm also not a lawyer, and I guess that is the least defined of rules and regulation," she explained.

Against Nintendo, it's unlikely a simple craftsperson like Ng will prevail. And, just to be clear, given the admitted inspiration by the Pokemon character, it's not like Nintendo is exactly wrong that there is some infringement here. It's just that there's absolutely no reason to throw the legal hammer around instead of working out some kind of other arrangement with one of their biggest fans. But, hey, you know...Nintendo.

from the let-me-tell-you-a-story dept

It's funny, but despite the stories we occasionally write involving the classic roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons, some of which I've written myself, I've never actually played the game. Maybe that's why, according to the folks who have tried to ban the game, I'm not a satanic axe-wielding, uber-murderer. Who knows; could be possible. And, truth be told, outside of the more broadly-accepted video game habit I have, I've never delved into much of the so-called nerd gaming culture, other than being completely addicted to Wil Wheaton's Table Top YouTube series. And, despite all of the historical controversy over these kinds of games, I really wish I'd gotten into them more now that some literary authors are claiming what a huge influence D&D-style games have had on their abilities as story-tellers.

For certain writers, especially those raised in the 1970s and '80s, all that time spent in basements has paid off. D&D helped jump-start their creative lives. As [writer Junot] Díaz said, "It's been a formative narrative media for all sorts of writers."

The league of ex-gamer writers also includes the "weird fiction" author China Miéville ("The City & the City"); Brent Hartinger (author of "Geography Club," a novel about gay and bisexual teenagers); the sci-fi and young adult author Cory Doctorow; the poet and fiction writer Sherman Alexie; the comedian Stephen Colbert; George R. R. Martin, author of the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series (who still enjoys role-playing games). Others who have been influenced are television and film storytellers and entertainers like Robin Williams, Matt Groening ("The Simpsons"), Dan Harmon ("Community") and Chris Weitz ("American Pie").

It's an impressive list, but it also makes a certain kind of sense. There's a certain sandbox-esque element to creating a low-tech story-based gaming environment centered around roleplaying with friends. As someone who has written fiction, I can tell you that one of the most important aspects of telling a story is being able to get inside the heads of the characters in your tale. That's essentially roleplaying, no matter how you look at it. The other half of the story equation is the setting, which is something roleplaying players also must engage in creatively.

The Dungeon Master must create a believable world with a back story, adventures the players might encounter and options for plot twists. That requires skills as varied as a theater director, researcher and psychologist — all traits integral to writing. (Mr. Díaz said his boyhood gaming group was "more like an improv group with some dice.")

Sharyn McCrumb, 66, who writes the Ballad Novels series set in Appalachia, was similarly influenced, and in her comic novel "Bimbos of the Death Sun" D&D even helps solve a murder.

"I always, always wanted to be the Dungeon Master because that's where the creativity lies — in thinking up places, characters and situations," Ms. McCrumb said. "If done well, a game can be a novel in itself."

Now, some of this might read like an advertisement for pen-and-paper or tabletop games as a creativity booster such that the modern-day video games can't match, but that's almost certainly a mistake. You can make that argument against some of the mindless games out there, but you could do likewise with poorly constructed D&D games as set up by the people playing them. As games become more story-driven, as they are able to portray plot and characters with more granularity than ever before, and as player choice becomes interwoven into the story, the player is creating their own story to some degree, just like they do in a classic roleplaying game.

The larger lesson, of course, is that all the moral panics we hear tend to focus on an overblown fear and ignore any net-positive that might exist. Generations of speculative fiction authors and other creative folks were influenced positively by Dungeons & Dragons, despite the fervor by some against the games themselves. I'd lay money down that we'll hear similar stories about modern-day gaming as well.

from the copyright-is-many-things-none-of-them-logical dept

The Princess Bride remains quite the iconic book and movie for tons of people who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s (and, hopefully, other ages as well... but I can only speak from experience). A huge number of lines have lived on from that movie and become mainstays in popular culture. And like all sorts of great culture, it has inspired plenty of additional creativity around the original as well. A guy named Joe Brack created a one-man show called My Princess Bride, in which he intersperses events and stories from his own life with elements of the book and movie:

While Brack does snippets of re-enactments, he intersperses such scenes with commentary. For example, during a solo parody of the iconic swordfight between Inigo Montoya and the man in black, Brack explains some of the history behind the obscure names of fencers that are thrown around in the dialogue.

But there is also plenty of personal material in the show: At one point Brack talks about the death of his grandmother in 2012.

And, guess what? Just as the one man show was about to come back, someone stepped in with a cease and desist letter, saying that the show infringed. While Brack won't say who sent the cease and desist, there's a pretty short list of whom it might be.

Brack's partner in putting on the show, Matty Griffiths, says they had explored the copyright issues before putting on the show and were reasonably confident that it was fair use -- and it would appear that they have a very strong fair use argument here. But... because of the stupid way our fair use laws work, the only way to definitively know if it's fair use is to spend megabucks on a lawsuit. So, instead, this bit of creativity that people seemed to enjoy... has been shut down. While the two guys seem willing to test it, the theater where they were going to put on the show has bailed out, citing the potential liability.

Yet another bit of creativity completely stomped out thanks to copyright.

Not only that, but it's turning fans of the original into... not fans:

“I’m gutted,” Brack says. “The past two days have been so hard. And whenever I’ve been bummed out and sad, I watch ‘The Princess Bride,’ and I can’t even do that now.”

He owns three copies of the book, and he’s reversed them in his bookcase to hide the titles.

“It feels like I’ve lost a friend,” he says.

Isn't copyright supposed to inspire creativity, rather than stomp it out?

from the one-good,-one-bad dept

There were two very interesting stories last week concerning hit songs allegedly "inspired" by hits from previous decades, but the stories are quite different. First up, was the news that Robin Thicke (along with Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris Jr.), whose song Blurred Lines appears to be the undisputed hit of the summer this year (with some controversy over the content), had filed for a declaratory judgment against Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music, after those two claimed that Blurred Lines infringes on Marvin Gaye's Got to Give it Up and Funkadelic's Sexy Ways. You can listen to them below:

Frankly, I can hear the similarities between Blurred Lines and Got to Give it Up (that bass line is pretty damn similar), but, as the filing for declaratory judgment notes, having a similar "feel" or "sound" is not copyright infringement (hello idea/expression dichotomy). As they note, Gaye's heirs appear to be "claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work."

As for the Funkadelic song, I don't hear it at all. But... this is Bridgeport, we're dealing with here, the company that George Clinton continues to claim forged documents to gain control over his copyrights, and which is without a doubt the single most aggressive of the sample trolls out there, going after anyone who uses even the tiniest snippet of some of the copyrights it controls (even if they were obtained by dubious means). Bridgeport has gone after musicians even when they distorted tiny snippets of music so much that the average listener couldn't recognize the original. So perhaps it claims something similar is happening here.

Either way, the threats came in and Thicke, Williams and Harris decided to strike first with a declaratory judgment. Good for them, but shame on Bridgeport and Marvin Gaye's heirs. Especially with Marvin Gaye, while the songs may have a similar feel, they're different songs. They're both enjoyable in their own ways, and the success of one doesn't take away from the other. In fact, it seems likely that the massive success of Blurred Lines is driving more interest in Got to Give it Up and other Marvin Gaye songs.

However, compare that dispute to another, very similar, dispute. It appears that there was some controversy over the fact that the band One Direction's latest song, entitled Best Song Ever (I'd put a joke here, but it sorta speaks for itself), is conspicuously similar to The Who's classic song Baba O'Riley. Again, to the comparisons:

Again, here, the similarities are pretty obvious and unmistakable. However, unlike Bridgeport or Marvin Gaye, The Who's Pete Townshend has said that he loves the fact that others are inspired by his works and has no issue with it at all. He was specifically asked if he was going to take legal action against One Direction, and pointed out that so much great music involves copying and building on the works of others:

No! I like the single. I like One Direction. The chords I used and the chords they used are the same three chords we've all been using in basic pop music since Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran and Chuck Berry made it clear that fancy chords don't mean great music – not always. I'm still writing songs that sound like Baba O'Riley – or I'm trying to!. It's a part of my life and a part of pop's lineage. One Direction are in my business, with a million fans, and I'm happy to think they may have been influenced a little bit by The Who. I'm just relieved they're all not wearing boiler suits and Doc Martens, or Union Jack jackets. The funniest thing is that in Canada this year I met with Randy Bachman once the leader of GUESS WHO who told me that he not only copied Baba O Riley for their hit You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet, but he even called his band after us. Why would I not be happy about this kind of tribute?

What a fantastic response in almost every way. And what a stark contrast to the heirs of Marvin Gaye and so many other copyright holders who seem to freak out when others are inspired by their works. Now, if we could just get Townshend to stop blaming Apple for the problems of the recording industry...

from the this-is-a-cool-story,-bro dept

With more and more internet adoption worldwide, collaboration and sharing as a genesis for creativity is becoming the norm. The marquis example is Wikipedia, of course, although we've noted a general theory that great ideas can spring from sharing and collaboration, often leading to unexpected (but fun) results. That's one of the reasons it's so fun to see things like the following emerge (completely NSFW, unless you're employed by Dark Helmet Inc.):

Yes, that's the trailer for a new video game to be released shortly, and it was inspired almost entirely by an online group and the resulting internet meme the group produced. Included amongst this list of video games resulting from internet memes, the entire premise of the game began with what was essentially a bitch-session online over how awful shooter game sequels are.

It all started with a joke on a forum. One NeoGAF forum user, annoyed with how lazy shooters had become, complained that he was tired of games like 'Dudebro 2: It's Straight-Up Dawg Time.' It grew from there.

The phrase became a byline for tired, me-too games, but it was so absurd that it got people thinking. Soon, it had mock cover art and a storyline. Before long, a team of fans were working on an entire game, a 2D platformer, and it's on the way soon. It even stars Jon St. John, the actor famous for voicing Duke Nukem.

Apparently, somehow, the entire premise for what looks like a hysterical game was generated spontaneously online in a collaborative format, as was the trailer, cover art, and storyline. Now, it may quickly be pointed out by some that the end product of this creativity is subject to copyright by default, but that misses the point entirely. This is simply another example of how creation occurs and how sharing and exchanging ideas freely can produce an interesting project as well as a great deal of fun. As collaboration of this nature expands due to the ability of people to connect on the internet, the overall need to lock up ideas relative to creative output is going to weaken. There may still be some "artists" who create simply for monetary gain, but their ranks are lessening.

Despite this impeccable pedigree, the Hurd is being used today by only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions running Linux -- further evidence that it's really not the idea, but the execution that counts.

from the it's-almost-as-if-this-is-totally-normal-or-something dept

We recently wrote about the fact that Michael Jackson copied the bass line for his famous song Billy Jean from Hall & Oates, who then admitted to having copied it themselves. Now, reader gort-o-matic points us to another legendary musician with a similar story. Bruce Springsteen, in his keynote address at SXSW, talked about how he copied riffs from his favorite bands, and encouraged young artists to do the same. (You can hear the relevant highlights at that link, or the entire keynote here)

For me, it was The Animals. ... "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" had a great bass riff, you know it had that—[plays riff on guitar]—and that was just a clock, a clock marking time. [sings the first few lines] That's every song I've ever written. "Badlands", "Prove It All Night", "Darkness" was filled with Animals. Youngsters, watch this one. I'll tell you how it's done right now. I took "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" [hums and strums the Animals riff, then transitions into his song Badlands]—It's the same fucking riff man. Listen up youngsters: this is how successful theft is accomplished.

Okay, so he calls it "theft" which it really isn't, but I'm less bothered by that when artists are using it as a playful term for copying than when they use it to try to give false emotional resonance to infringement. The point remains the same: artists (and I don't think anyone can argue that the The Boss is not a bona fide artist) copy and build upon the work of others. Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen are high-profile examples, but they are just a drop in the bucket. Every artist, big and small, does the same thing. It's not being unoriginal, it's just how art works.

from the someone-send-him-a-copy-of-james-boyle's-book dept

Here's a brief article from New Zealand, which suggests that part of the US's proposal for the TPP agreement is to extend copyrights across the various participating countries to life plus 70 years -- what it already is in the US, but 20 years longer than it is in many countries. That's not too surprising. However, what struck me was a quote from New Zealand musician Ray Columbus who appears to be in favor not just of extending copyright, but of wiping out the public domain entirely:

"Some people believe in public domain. Why? Just so you can rip off dead people's works? That's pathetic."

No, Ray, what's pathetic is not knowing how culture works, and the importance of building on those who came before. Having never heard of Ray Colombus, I decided to look around -- and lo and behold, it appears that in his younger days Columbus recognized this. An interesting bio of Columbus reveals that his band, Ray Columbus and the Invaders, was originally a cover band who copied their dance moves (and, yes, as crazy as it seems, dance moves can be covered by copyright) from American servicemen on leave in New Zealand. Oops.

Other bios note how strongly he was influenced by other artists, such as Elvis, Cliff Richard and the Beatles. His one big hit, She's a Mod, is a cover song. Yes, it was licensed, but apparently the changes they made to the song were basically to copy things from the Beatles. And that's fine, because the fact is, people build on culture. It's not just about "ripping off" others. So it's rather hypocritical of Columbus to decry others for the same practice.

What it comes down to is that poor Ray Columbus seems to think copyright is a welfare system because he apparently failed to invest wisely or plan for retirement:

When 60s pop star Columbus suffered a stroke nearly four years ago, he was able to pay the bills because every time a song he has performed gets played, he still collects a fee.

"The performing fees I get give a dribbling of an income that's so important to artists."

How is that fair compared to most other professions? The bricklayer who has a stroke isn't able to pay the bills because by collecting a fee every time someone uses a building he built. No, the bricklayer and pretty much everyone else in every other profession has to actually save money and plan for their future. What makes Columbus so special that he gets to skip over that part?

What's especially neat is that nearly all of these examples were apparently crowdsourced by fans of the project.

Of course, I'm sure some will point out that these are "inspirations" for The Matrix. And some may be accidental or aren't really copies at all. But I believe that's missing the larger point. Clearly The Matrix was inspired by a number of other works, whether or not all of these things were accurate. What the Wachowskis did with The Matrix was to take all those different influences and pull them together in a very compelling way with a very compelling storyline -- something I believe the Wachowskis are quite happy to admit. This is the very nature of storytelling. You build on the works of others. Everyone does it all the time.

In fact (rather amusingly), comic artist Grant Morrison, whose comic The Invisibles has been mentioned as an inspiration for The Matrix was once asked about how he felt about the Wachowskis building off of his work, and his response was that "they should have kept on stealing from me" in making the sequels, so that the sequels wouldn't have been so "incomprehensible."

The fear here is about overaggressive laws that block out this ability to be inspired and to pay homage. As we've clearly seen, time and time again, there are lots of people who seem to think it's infringement to pay homage to the works of someone else. It's ridiculous and shortsighted, but some courts agree, and the problem may only become worse.